S. ABDUL JABBAR KHAN (CHAIRMAN). --Altaf Hussain, Assistant, Directorate of Education (Schools), Rawalpindi Division, Rawalpindi has filed this appeal under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974 against the order dated 21-9-1981 passed by Deputy Director (Schools), Rawalpindi Division, Rawalpindi, whereby he has allowed seniority to Respondent No.4 over the appellant. He has impleaded Director of Public Instructions (Schools) Punjab, Lahore, Director of Education (Schools), Rawalpindi Division, Rawalpindi, Deputy Director (Schools), Directorate of Education (S), Rawalpindi Division, Rawalpindi and Muhammad Ayub, Assistant, Directorate of Education (Schools), Rawalpindi Division, Rawalpindi as respondents.
2. By virtue of this appeal he has prayed that the order dated 21-9-1981 regarding seniority of respondent No.4 be set aside.
3. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant appointed as Junior Clerk w.e.f. 16-3-1968 and his appointment was confirmed by order dated 6-4-1978. A seniority List was prepared and circulated among all concerned vide order dated 1-3-1979 (Annexure 'B'). In the said seniority List the appellant was placed at Sr. No.67 and respondent No.4 at Sr. No.80. This Seniority List although circulated but was never objected to by the respondent No.4. The appellant and respondent No.4 were promoted as Senior Clerks in accordance with their respective seniority but later on it seems that the respondent No.4 filed an appeal against the seniority of the appellant and the said appeal was accepted and appellant was declared junior to the respondent No. 4. However, this fact came to the notice of the appellant and as soon as he learnt the same he filed an appeal to the next higher authority but the same was not accepted. The said appeal was decided on 15-9-1985.
Hence this appeal.
4. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant as well as the learned District Attorney assisted by the representative of the Department and have perused the record of this case carefully with their assistance.
5. The learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the order dated 21-9-1981 would have no legal effect as the same has been issued after lapse of 2J years of circulation of seniority list and confirmation of the appellant. He has also made a grievance that this order was not conveyed to the appellant in any manner whatsoever According to the learned counsel appellant belongs to a confirmed service, whereas the respondent No.4 was initiated into service in the year 1969 against a regular vacancy and his earlier service if any was stop-gap arrangements against a leave vacancy.
6. On the other hand the learned District Attorney has adopted the comments of the Department and has submitted that the Respondent No.4 was positively given a benefit of stop-gap arrangements against a leave vacancy and this may be considered valid.
7. We have given our anxious thought to the arguments advanced by the parties and find from the record of this case that the respondent No.4 was confirmed later than the appellant and his earlier service if any was resulted of stop-gap arrangements against leave vacancy. Relying on 1982 PLC (C.S.) 94 this Tribunal finds that in the said judgment it has been held as under: "Seniority in the circumstances held correctly allowed from the date of regular appointment and claim for seniority for service rendered against leave vacancy nor sustainable."
This being so, this Tribunal cannot deviate from its decision which has attained finality and hold again that the period of stop-gap arrangements against leave vacancy cannot be allowed to the respondent to count towards the seniority against appellant who according to the record of this case was confirmed earlier than Respondent No.4 against the regular vacancy.
8. Resultantly, we accept the appeal, set aside the impugned orders and declare the appellant senior to the respondent No.4. However, there will be no orders as to costs.
A.E./60/Sr.S